Rhode Island is firmly on the sidelines when it comes to
presidential elections. We are ignored by both parties in the
Presidential contest because the results in Rhode Island are a foregone
conclusion. Our electoral votes are locked into the state-by-state,
winner-take-all system, making our votes as individual Rhode Islanders
irrelevant. Candidates don’t come here or familiarize themselves with
our issues, and campaigns don’t spend money here. We are essentially
shut out of presidential politics.

During the general election season, presidential and vice presidential candidates visited similarly-sized New Hampshire for 12 public campaign events between September 5th and November 4th. They did not hold a single public event in Rhode Island, although then-Senator Joe Biden did visit for a $1,000 per ticket fundraiser.

As Rhode Island’s concerns were being ignored, its businesses were also being hurt by an absence of the spending vibrant campaign operations bring. Between September 24th and November 4th, the major candidates spent $2,924,839 on television and radio ads targeted in New Hampshire—and $0 in Rhode Island.

Contrast that reality
with the 2008 Rhode Island presidential primary: with only a few
delegates at stake, major candidates campaigned in the Ocean State,
courting our votes and pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into
our economy.

Small states like Rhode Island are almost all
spectator states in the Presidential election. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. This means that two thirds of the states, including Rhode Island, were ignored by the presidential campaigns. Nationwide, this lack of interest in “safe” states had a serious effect: turnout was 6% higher in the “battleground” swing states.

Electing the President by
national popular vote would mean that our votes here in Rhode Island
would be worth the same as a vote in Florida and Ohio. Republicans and
Democrats alike would vote knowing that their contribution counted
directly toward their favored candidate.

The National Popular
Vote Compact (NPV) is the best way to achieve real reform to our
presidential elections, and move past a system that leaves most states
out, and can produce winners who lose the popular vote.

Read more about the compact at nationalpopularvote.org. Here's their three-sentence explanation of how the plan works:

Under
the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete)
power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state
laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral
votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the
most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The
bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states
possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral
votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

With support from Senate sponsor Daniel Connors and House sponsor Donald Lally, NPV is moving forward in Rhode Island. Former Senator Lincoln Chafee wrote a letter to members of the General Assembly on why he supports NPV.

On May 27th, 2008, the RI State Senate passed S 2112, the National Popular
Vote compact, with a 27-10 vote. On June 19th, 2008, the RI House passed the
bill on a 36-34 vote. On July 3rd, 2008, Governor Carcieri vetoed the national popular vote compact. In 2009, FairVote will work to get the national popular vote bill passed with a wider margin.

Let
your legislators know that you support a National Popular Vote for
president, and tell them you support this key democracy reform. Click here to join the email campaign for the National Popular Vote.